DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

Pages

Tuesday, 4 July 2017

Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst. Interview IJCI Report.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Yesterday (Mon July 3rd 2017) saw the publication of the long awaited report of the Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry which can (and should) be read HERE. As readers would expect Team Voice will be reporting on the report's content/findings in more detail in the coming weeks/months.

Firstly we should say that the report vindicated the Victims and Survivors of horrendous abuse over a period of decades. They were listened to by the Child Abuse Inquiry and most importantly they were believed. A landmark day for the survivors.

VFC was granted an in-depth interview (video below) with Chief Minister Ian Gorst who acknowledged the vindication of Victims/Survivors and went on to acknowledge/vindicate Team Voice for its determination to give them a voice.

We asked the Chief Minister questions that don't get asked by the local Mainstream Media, indeed we asked him about the local MSM, who despite (in some cases) have improved their reporting (or not) in recent years still have many questions to answer for their role in forming public opinion against the original police investigation (Operation Rectangle) and by implication the Victims/Survivors and their campaigners.

Chief Minister Gorst is encouraging States Members and members of the public to read the Inquiry's report in its entirety. He wants people to try and understand the extent of the abuse dished out to vulnerable children who were in the "care" of the States of Jersey and elsewhere. We too encourage readers of this Blog to read the harrowing stories given in evidence by Victims/Survivors and others.

Unless people have read the transcripts/evidence of abuse Survivors' to the Inquiry they will have no idea of the horrors they were subjected to. This (we argue) is because the local MSM has down-played that evidence/abuse and not reported on it at all.

A particular story they haunts me to this day and I believe will haunt me for a long time to come is of a Victim/Survivor giving evidence to the Inquiry. He was, courageously, reliving/telling his story of when he was an eight year old boy at Haut de la Garenne when he was anally raped by one of the staff. His anus was bleeding for days and through embarrassment/fear he tried to mask the anal bleeding by stuffing toilet roll in the wound. When that did not "cure" the "problem" he was taken to the hospital where the "doctor" "diagnosed" him with piles and back he went to Haut de la Garenne. The Victim/Survivor told the Inquiry that his abuser told him if he spoke of the abuse to anybody he will be sent to St. Saviour's mental hospital.

Can you imagine being an eight year old vulnerable child put into an institution of "care" where you are being anally raped/tortured and then being told/threatened that a place exists (St. Saviour's) worse than where you are at?

The same day this evidence was given to the Inquiry local ITV/CTV reported that evidence of abuse was given at the Care Inquiry by Victims which included being flicked by towels in the shower. This is why the local MSM's role in public opinion against Operation Rectangle, and by implication, the Victims and Survivors should have formed part of the Inquiry's TOR's and why everybody should read the Inquiry's report to get a real understanding of what torture these vulnerable children really went through because the MSM hasn't told that story.

Former Home Affairs Minister Deputy Andrew Lewis.

We also asked Chief Minister Gorst what he is going to do about former Home Affairs Minister, and current PAC Chairman, Andrew Lewis. Deputy Lewis has now been labelled a "liar" by the Panel of the Care Inquiry. The Panel believes that not only did the Deputy lie to the Island's parliament when he (possibly illegally) suspended the Chief of Police during a live Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) but believe he also lied (under oath) to the Inquiry itself. Is that not perjury?

The Chief Minister was visibly uncomfortable with that question and answered it by saying the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) will need to look at it. When told by VFC that a complaint had already been made about Deputy Lewis' "lies" (long before the report was published) PPC refused to deal with it. The Chief Minister told us that PPC will HAVE to deal with it.

Regular readers will be aware of the complaint to PPC against Andrew Lewis but for our many new readers it can be read HERE and HERE. The question has to be asked: "Is PPC fit for purpose and will a Vote of No Confidence be brought against it?" We are told that a Vote of No Confidence against Deputy Andrew Lewis IS being drafted and attracting strong support from across the political divide.

Also discussed in the interview below are the recommendations of the Care Inquiry and if /how they can be implemented. "The Jersey Way" is another topic discussed and much more.

Team Voice would like to thank Chief Minister Gorst for being approachable and engaging with Citizens Media. We also thank him for the support he has given to the Care Inquiry, his vindication of Abuse Survivors and finally his vindication and support of Team Voice's campaign.

We'd like to take this opportunity to remind the media that there will be a Press Conference held by Campaigners for Abuse Victims/Survivors at the Royal Court Building 1:pm in the Blampied room. The Press Release can be read HERE.

275 comments:

Not sure what you are getting at with the Press. We are currently aware of the ISIS torture and murder of children in Syria and Iraq but many UK Newspapers will not report on the details because it would not be appropriate to do so with a Family audience. There is nothing in Law that forces them to do so.

Actually he UK Newspapers are fairly keen to publish the atrocities of ISIS

@10:20 I'm not sure why you are defending the wilful complicity of the establishment media:

"A particular story they haunts me to this day and I believe will haunt me for a long time to come is of a Victim/Survivor giving evidence to the Inquiry. He was, courageously, reliving/telling his story of when he was an eight year old boy at Haut de la Garenne when he was anally raped by one of the staff. His anus was bleeding for days and through embarrassment/fear he tried to mask the anal bleeding by stuffing toilet roll in the wound. When that did not "cure" the "problem" he was taken to the hospital where the "doctor" "diagnosed" him with piles and back he went to Haut de la Garenne. The Victim/Survivor told the Inquiry that his abuser told him if he spoke of the abuse to anybody he will be sent to St. Saviour's mental hospital.

Can you imagine being an eight year old vulnerable child put into an institution of "care" where you are being anally raped/tortured and then being told/threatened that a place exists (St. Saviour's) worse than where you are at?

The same day this evidence was given to the Inquiry local ITV/CTV reported that evidence of abuse was given at the Care Inquiry by Victims which included being flicked by towels in the shower."

I. QUESTIONS*(d) – Urgent Oral questionsThe following urgent oral question has been approved by the Deputy Bailiff and will be asked at the present meeting –Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade will ask the following question of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee –

“Further to the finding of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry (R.59/2017) that Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. Helier “lied both to the States and to us” (paragraph 10.42), what action will the Privileges and Procedures Committee be taking, if any, in relation to this matter and, if no action is proposed, why not?”

Don't be side-tracked Monty. We need questions on the behaviour of the Bailhaches, Michael Birt, jurats and, Bill Ogley, Anton Skinner and the like before we worry about stupid, wannabe patsies like the pathetic Andrew Lewis. Yes he should be sacked but not as a sacrificial lamb to deflect from the real pillars of the Jersey Way Ian Gorst won't face up to.

I agree with you. The Bailhaches are a ducked major issue. As are the structural abnormalities of a politicised judiciary. We paid £23 million for the above not to be touched. That is what money really went on- the protection of that. So they threw Lewis to the wolves instead thinking it will all go away.

So the Chief Minister is going to implement these reccommendations with his ministers and the States. Let us be reminded, that one of his ministers, Philip Bailhache, was at the forefront of not prosecuting many of those accused and implicated many times. Also, he allowed a convicted paedophile to become part of the Honorary Police whilst Attorney General, he allowed an officially identified paedophile protector (in the Sharpe Report and investigating Police Officer) to become a Jurat whilst Bailiff and evidence given in the enquiry from a former Head of Education, stated that Bailhache told him that he wasn't going to prosecute an alleged paedophile and that he just wanted him 'got rid of'. Furthermore, we have a Speaker of the States, William Bailhache protecting Mr K and both him and Michael Birt not prosecuting the Maguires. This is a big part of the Jersey way, which neither the report or Mr Gorst has the courage to talk about. How can Gorst ensure the protection of children, and deliver justice and some final closure to the survivors of this abuse, when those responsible for not prosecuting the alleged perpretrators are not held to account and are in Government and the Speaker of our Government. Nobody from what I have read, has seriously addressed the issue of the Judiciary's role in why this abuse has continued. Where are our few decent politicians asking these questions publicly - Deputies Mezec, Higgins and Tadier? Because when it comes down to it,it is only by politicians putting stuff like this on the public agenda, will things change. What Gorst says he is going to do is just window dressing.

1) Coming to critical conclusions was "above their pay grade". So they documented the different accounts and left it to others. The chair for example, may depend for future work on some sort of legal patronage. I am not saying this is the case, I don't know hoe judges get cases assigned, but it may be so. (Mind you she has earned enough to put her feet up for a while!

2) They were / are all into child protection and care systems. They are not into politics. In the end they got the stuff about the "Jersey Way" a bit, and their comments on that have helpfully launched a big debate. But joining the dots, they were not really interested, for instance the sequence - Bellwood, Syvret; power, and Harper (denigration of) - is a pretty remarkable sequence . . . but no attempt at interpreting this from the panel.

They took a view of the TOR which was restricted. Even the name they adopted - or were given???? - is restrictive. From the very word go, the talk was about "care" and this affected the way they went about their task.

Yes, they did some stuff round Power's suspension, tney looked at the relationship between the Police and the LOD, but they did not really engage with that stuff.not about "abuse"

Good interview and credit to Gorst for giving it to a citizens media outlet. But let him off the hook please do not. He doesn't want to talk about the Jersey way he says. Tough.

The Jersey way starts with Bailiffs, Attorney Generals and Gorst's predecessors as Chief Minister. Why not grill him on that? Does he have the backbone to call out the knighted sociopaths? Of course he doen't.

Have you been interviewd by national media? If so where can we read/view this? Like to say that I would also like to see interviews with Daniel Wimberley and Trevor Pitman if they have done any. We must not let this drop now over the summer. Election only 10 months away.

National print media singularly uninterested so far. I have sent them releases about the website issue - and how the info from the Inquiry, including their internal workings will be preserved, and not a sign of interest. We sent them the release of the "campaigners' group" anticipating the report of the Inquiry - again no interest.

Except from the broadcast media, for some reason, who turned up in force - BBC1, Sky and ITV (perhaps via Channel) were all there.

We have been told time and time again that the system of governance in Jersey is functional.

This is, is it not, why the Clothier report was not fully implemented. Things were not considered to be all that bad, right? Only a few tweaks were needed or needed to be accepted to bring about a fully functioning government with checks and balances...? No.

Well if this inquiries final report is not confirmation of a dysfunctional system of governance then I don't know what is. It's not a matter of sacking or vilifying a single politician (sorry bureaucrat) in this situation of insurmountable evidence for the entire systems failure to provide for those most in need. It is a crime against logic ( as well as humanity) to continue to support a system, a regime, of feudal lordship over all. It would be highly improbable that the failings as reported did not extend into every sphere of life and culture as we understand it.

This report should be the beginning not the final end. We all should by now know that it MUST change.

The government must resign.

The Lieutenant Governor must make a statement and ask for a public referendum on how the system must change whilst imposing a temporary government oversight until such time as there is a fully functioning DEMOCRATIC system of government is in place. This must include a set term of office.

I ask those who can make this happen happen before the chance is lost for another generation or longer.

Hope someone at this press conference mentioned the judicial scandal that the COI shied away from? We need a separation of powers, no more brothers as chief judge and AG and no more paedo protectors being rewarded with jobs as Jurats.

This isn't the only Lewis lie though is it, recall his media actions after Farnham amended his reform proposal. Think it was this blog that did a video on it.The Care Inquiry Report has come as a pleasant surprise for its no punches, take no prisoners attitude against the system, and Lewis whether he likes it or not has been outed as a charlatan. Should have resigned this morning.

Very good interview VFC, and full credit to the Chief Minister for agreeing to do this, on what was a very busy day for him as well.

At this point I will say that the momentum in getting the recommendations approved and past the States Assembly must, and I repeat MUST be kept alive. There should be a concerted effort now that all can read what is a damning report. There should be no resistance and the important word 'Independant' should prevail throughout.

Agree with the above. Focus is going to go on Lewis, although deserved.The likes of the Bailhaches have huge questions over their former actions. Michael Birt, Ogley etc too. Tadier don't get side tracked. Lewis really is the easiest point to make. We need politicians asking about the judiciary etc. If the judiciary ain't going to get sorted - this injustice will go on.

Anonymous 4 July 2017 at 09:16I just listened to Ian Gorst being interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme this morning. When pressed by the interviewer to answer a question, he confirmed that he was shocked and surprised by the findings of the public inquiry. He also stated words to the effect that the inquiry's report was the first time evidence of widespread child abuse in care homes had been documented, and how shocked he was to hear the stories of the survivors.

VFC, I hope you obtain a transcript of this interview and ask Mr Gorst to explain these comments. You would literally have had to have been in a coma for the last decade to find anything in this report either surprising or novel. The existence and extent of child abuse in government institutions in Jersey, the identity of many of the abusers, and the enablers (from H&SS managers turning a blind eye to law officers actively protecting abusers and harassing whistleblowers), the states members covering up and lying, the local media mounting propaganda campaigns against police officers intent on uncovering the truth: we have known about all this for years.

Yet not, apparently, our chief minister. I hope you relentlessly question him about the credibility of his comments.

I hope you also specifically ask him whether he feels he should apologise, on behalf of the states, to Stuart Syvret for the way in which the former senator was treated, and ask him whether he believes Syvret has now been vindicated.

The Bailiff, William Bailhache, has called on Islanders to "adopt the Jersey way" during his address as part of the 72nd anniversary of Liberation Day.

The sun was shining brightly yesterday as the Bailiff spoke to the crowd saying: "So let us treasure our institutions, learn Jersey French, eat Jersey Royals and drink milk from Jersey cows and let us adopt the Jersey Way, whatever changes arise in the composition of our people in the future because that sums up what we were liberated from on 9th May 1945."

There were hundreds of people sat in Liberation Square and even more lining the streets and watching the official ceremony from a big screen at the Weighbridge. The Bailiff renewed his call to reclaim the expression 'The Jersey Way' "... from those who abused it," and added, "...to me it means being tolerant, being competent in what we do, and showing integrity and compassion."

The lies of Andrew Lewis ....10.373 Andrew Lewis lied to the States Assembly about the Metropolitan Police report, pretending that he had had sight of it when he had not; Andrew Lewis told Dr Brian Napier QC that he had discussed the suspension of Graham Power in October 2008, while telling us that he knew nothing about it until 11 November 2008; Andrew Lewis denied that he had discussed with Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris the possibility that Graham Power would be suspended. We do not accept his evidence in this respect.Phil

Lewis is a proven compulsive liar ... and if he continues to plead innocence then it must also follow that Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris and Brian Napier and the COI panel have either lied or failed to understand that what he actually said was a genuine mistake or both ... the man is a complete fraud and Frank Walker is responsible for allowing/encouraging his appointment as HA minister. Phil

But the question that the COI, by their own admission, were unable to answer was why Walker, Ogley and Lewis colluded in the way they did to suspend Graham Power. There is no sense to it. Perhaps GP can enlighten us as to the reasoning behind all of this because I don't believe that the problem ... whatever the perceived problem was ...was going to go away with his suspension. In fact I feel that the suspension just made everything worse. P

@ PhilThe "emergency" removal of the Chief of Police was not just a punishment for allowing the investigation of child abuse. There were more urgent matters which precipitated the madness as at least two police enquiries were reaching a critical stage

1. The investigation into "Planning corruption on an industrial scale"

2. The serial rape investigation into a very senior oligarchy linchpin, who was accused by a multitude of young women of brutal and violent rapes and had been above the law up to that point. Mr [737] still holds a very senior position and is again above the rule of law.

It must be the most candid interview he has ever given. He holds no punches and is NOT complimentary of the Jersey authorities nor the local mainstream media. Needless to say he also offers a few words concerning Deputy Andrew Lewis and his lies. Hope to publish tomorrow.

Sir Philip's apogee today was eight years too late. Does he really believe that we believe his "Honest Mistake"? Him and his Brother are the bad Jersey Way, which has to go.... The good Jersey Way can stay.

Good work to all those who partook in the Inquiry, it was a better than expected Report, and it has given some closure for a few who feel they can move on. This is refreshing.We shall re-visit the promises of Ian Gorst in the Months to come as he said his Government would implement the recommendations, and I believe that as he has been so sincere.Andrew Lewis should have resigned today, he is a liar and his continued presence in the States puts the Assembly into disrepute. This is the only issue outstanding at the moment, the man makes me sick and angry every time I see his smug face in the news. I hope you keep the pressure on him.Thanks

Everywhere online over the past day has talked about Deputy Andrew Lewis being labelled a liar by an official report with calls for him to leave the States.Compared to the VONC in Ian Gorst 2 weeks ago this is mega.

Andrew Lewis remaining a politician brings the whole parliament into disrepute. If it was a progressive/anti establishment politician called out to be a liar by a prominent QC then you can be sure a VONC would have been tabled this morning. As far as I see it he has committed perjury. He needs to go in order to help bring some trust/confidence/respect back to our parliamentarians.

"Andrew Lewis should have resigned today, he is a liar and his continued presence in the States puts the Assembly into disrepute. This is the only issue outstanding at the moment, the man makes me sick and angry every time I see his smug face in the news. This is the only issue outstanding at the moment, the man makes me sick and angry every time I see his smug face in the news. "

Sorry, but this is absolutely NOT the only issue outstanding at the moment.

Oldham I think has done an ok job. Probably went as far as she was allowed to. Her request to revisit the island to track implementation of recommendations is a good one.

But let's.

Gorst is correct and is making the right noises thus far.

But he needs to go further.

The police investigations need to be re-opened. Many files where the police had a lot of evidence went to your DPP, and no charges were recommended. We need not re-iterate the names, but in some cases the files related to senior people.

I cannot wait for the Graham Power interview. He is reported in today's JEP as saying:

"I have read and re-read the relevant section of the inquiry report and can give it no other interpretation than the Committee of Inquiry having publicly and openly accused Andrew Lewis of the crime of perjury. That being the case, the next proper step would be to initiate an independent criminal investigation reporting to independent prosecutors."

"If it is necessary I am quite prepared to make a formal complaint in my own name but that should be unnecessary"

"If, as is sometimes claimed, the Jersey authorities are committed to high standards in public life, then steps to initiate such an inquiry should already be under way and we should be hearing about the terms of reference soon. Or will it be yet another case of the Jersey authorities being dragged kicking and screaming towards doing the right thing?"

Ten out of ten, Mr Power, I salute you.

Also, I know Stuart Syvret rightly hates the JEP and refuses to read it. Please can someone buy him a copy of the edition dated 4th July where, on page 8 , they report the Inquiry's praise of his actions and, in their editorial on page 12, they say:

"Many, including former Senator Stuart Syvret and survivors he and others represented and championed, will today rightly feel vindicated by the findings. In so many ways, they have been proved correct."

Let me just repeat that a few times...

In so many ways, they have been proved correctIn so many ways, they have been proved correctIn so many ways, they have been proved correct

Oldahm said somethings I agreed with. For example, "Some children are still in danger today."

And let me give you a current, live, example of that.

Earlier this year I wrote a detailed e-mail to the States of Jersey Police Force, explaining to them I required to make formal, detailed statements of criminal complaint - complaints of child-abuse, of corruption, of rape, of murder, of misconduct in public office, of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Somethings never change. Our police force - since the illegal suspension of Graham Power - is nothing more than a public-funded, private "security" firm, of muscle and enforcement and threat - under the express, direct executive control of the Jersey mafia.

There are child-abusers - walking free in Jersey - right now. And they do so secure in the knowledge that Jersey's "law-enforcement", "criminal-justice system" is on their side. Working for them. Protecting them. And crushing whistle-blowers.

There are child-abusers - walking free in Jersey - right now. And they do so secure in the knowledge that Jersey's "law-enforcement", "criminal-justice system" is on their side. Working for them. Protecting them. And crushing whistle-blowers.

Although he does need to correct it to advise readers that the section titled "Extracts from the transcript" is when Lewis is being question by lawyer Cathryn McGahey at the inquiry, not the transcript of the States assembly.

This stuff on Lewis has been known since the leaked in camera debate. Deputy Higgins, I think it was, caused the debate to be published and then we had Wendy Kinnard's evidence about the meeting in her house.

Yet Lewis was appointed/elected to the Public Accounts Committee, the function of which is to hold others to account. And he has been left there up to now.

What does this tell us about power and cowardice in the Jersey system?

Oldham has done an ok job. I wouldn't put it stronger than that. Given her limited terms of reference, she seems to have gone as far as she could be allowed to.

Chief Minister Gorst's comments, as quoted in the MSM interviews, and right here on this blog, are, without a doubt, very welcome. His stated commitment to child welfare on the island of Jersey, an island where he holds very senior office (and the island on which he was faced with a very obvious bullshit attempt to stir up a vote of no-confidence very recently, as reported on on this blog) is welcome. ) It is a lot better than some of his predecessors, mind you 'tis not difficult to surpass that singularly low boundary!

The in camera debate was first given to the Committee of Inquiry by ex Deputy Trevor Pitman within his statement and supporting documents. Possibly partly explains why it all went missing for so long?

Don't know who originally leaked it. Was it Pitman himself? Was it Deputy Higgins? maybe Deputy Tadier? Doesn't really matter does it. The cat was out of the bag for all to read. And look where it has thankfully got us! Some degree of vindication for Graham Power at last.

I intend doing a blog post on the Report when I have read more of it and have reflected on it.

Meanwhile I was very taken aback at the brazen way the Inquiry regretted that Stuart Syvret had not appeared. They made no mention of his request for legal representation nor of their refusal to accede to it and then hide their decision in the cobwebs on their website.

I heard Stuart on BBC Radio Jersey earlier today and while he did acknowledge the value of much of the Inquiry's work, if I heard him right, he did say that they funked the broader issue of the power structure in Jersey, and if this was not dealt with there could be no sustainable solution to the island's problems. He has been consistent in this line since the beginning.

The Inquiry will no doubt argue that such things are outside their remit. But they claim that, while Victoria College was also outside their remit, they would deal with it as it might be an indication of the underlying attitude of the authorities/SOJP.

Then they ducked any finding that Graham Power's suspension had anything to do with abuse and coverup saying that he was not in control anyway and the police investigation continued uninterrupted without him.

Given that Graham Power specifically mentioned Person 737 as possibly behind his suspension, and given that this was very relevant to the authorities' attitude to abuse and cover up, you would think that the Inquiry would have checked if following Power's suspension, Mick Gradwell went ahead with his scheduled interview with 737 under caution as a suspect, or not. And you'd have thought the Inquiry would include this vital piece of evidence in their report.

As I have not read the full report I cannot say 100% that there is nothing in it, but it is not mentioned in the police chapter.

So ,as said in the comments above, go ahead with the excellent and badly needed recommendations in the report.

"I heard Stuart on BBC Radio Jersey earlier today and while he did acknowledge the value of much of the Inquiry's work, if I heard him right, he did say that they funked the broader issue of the power structure in Jersey, and if this was not dealt with there could be no sustainable solution to the island's problems. He has been consistent in this line since the beginning."

"Consider how the Education and Health and Social Services Departments dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took, whether these actions were in line with the policies and procedures of the day, and whether those policies and procedures were adequate."

It could be argued that the enquiry did have a remit to delve a little further at Victoria College.

I along with no doubt hundreds of others have bookmarked the Final report of the CoI to read through. Having said that it surely must now be time to clean out the pig sty of all that is wrong with the feudalistic BS that is called 'The Jersey Way'. I was born in this beloved Island as were my parents and grand parents and I have no liking for red cloaks, ermine collars and pork pie hats. WE the ordinary people have been treated like the serfs we are considered to be by the almighty PTB. It is long past time that the Queen (via her appointed Governor) took heed of what is happening here in the so called Crown Dependancies. The irony of all this is that the establishment idiots in being so determined to crush all those who would stand against their collective tyrany have by their own actions brought about (hopefully) their own demise. No more ducking and diving, get the Constables out of the chamber, get the separation of powers in place but perhaps more than anything else get rid of the crown officers and their letters patent and let us, the Jersey people have true democracy.

Its not just the Porky Pies at the In Camera Debate its this meeting as well -

"10.345 On 18 October 2008, Senator Wendy Kinnard met her deputy Minister, Andrew Lewis, at her home. Her husband, Christopher Harris, a lawyer, was present for some of the meeting and shortly afterwards drafted a handwritten note of the main points. According to Senator Wendy Kinnard, Andrew Lewis told her of steps being taken to remove or discipline Graham Power. He told her about “extracts" from a Metropolitan Police report and said “for God’s sake don’t tell Frank what I’m telling you”. She advised Andrew Lewis not to do anything until he had full information. She was reassured when he told her that he would stand up to any pressure to invoke suspension. Senator Wendy Kinnard had no further discussions with Andrew Lewis about the proposed suspension of Graham Power.255 On 20 October 2008, she resigned as Minister for Home Affairs. She was succeeded by Andrew Lewis.

10.346 Andrew Lewis denied that there were any discussions about Graham Power’s suspension and asserted that Christopher Harris’s note was fabricated. He claimed to have known nothing at all about the proposed suspension until 11 November 2008, despite the fact that, as Home Affairs Minister, he would have been the only person with the power to suspend the CO.256 Both Senator Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris gave evidence to the Inquiry, attesting to the accuracy of the note. We accept the account that they gave to us about their meeting with Andrew Lewis.

10.347 Dr Brian Napier QC, an expert in employment law, subsequently investigated Graham Power’s suspension. Andrew Lewis told Dr Brian Napier that, between 22 and 28 October, he had discussed with Mr Crich (Director of HR) and Bill Ogley the possibility of Graham Power being suspended. Andrew Lewis said in evidence to the Inquiry that he may have got “muddled” when talking to Dr Brian Napier. However, we find that Andrew Lewis was not muddled. His account to Dr Brian Napier provides confirmation of the accuracy of the evidence of Senator Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris about their meeting with Andrew Lewis; he clearly knew well before 11 November 2008 of the plan to suspend Graham Power."

Can I just make a general observation? Very obviously - as has been long-expected - people on our side feel vindication - rightly - and a certain catharsis - the relief, of being shown to be right - after such a long, hard, battle against toxic corruption; against the Currency-of-Concealment.

As was always going to be the case, yes, as others have described, the CoI report is far from perfect. It has deficiencies, errors, lacunae. But - essentially - it shows that we were right.

Now what we have to do is begin a new task - the next phase - which was always going to face us - of now challenging, and scrutinising, the failures in the rule-of-law in Jersey. God knows, the report of the CoI gives more than enough ammunition, and grounds, for justifying such an inquiry, such scrutiny.

Now that the truth of Jersey's child-protection failures is established - validating what so many of us have been saying for a decade - now, we challenge the "system" which permitted such failure.

I believe that Oldham was constrained by many pressures internally and that what has been allowed to be transmitted should be understood in this context.

If you will allow me to indulge my perceived understanding of this scenario, I offer this;

If you (Oldham) in this scenario wished for change to actually happen and not just talk about certain implementation over a certain time within a certain budget with all the baggage that goes with political opposition and indecision. Bearing in mind that the government has been asked to change preceding the war and subsequently repeatedly by many experts in every decade following. Perhaps she has a plan?

The plan is this: if we put the government in a critical strategic position where clearly a member had lied. This is an important word that is not in keeping with the report and not an error of judgment or frustration at an individual, no she is too intelligent and professional. I believe that she is purposefully pushing this in order to force the government to out one of their own. It's a lose lose situation for them. If they don't they look bad and complicit. If they do the question remains why didn't they do it before? But they still appear complicit; the reason for this being can all this be blamed an one individual? I think not.

To sum up, If there is a will out there and enough external pressure from the public (a big ask) and the media (an even bigger ask) then the government has nowhere to go at least politically if we look at the logic here. If I'm right, then perhaps behind the scenes there is discord with the present governing system with the higher powers (our overlords) and they are disquiet about this behind the scenes.

Perhaps there is an opportunity being presented to us to take up this challenge and bring about complete change in the system. There may be more support out there than we know. Believe me when I say there is real concern out there in our power structure; Phillip apologising after such a long time...

A last word here that I also believe that there is a reward in history for you Stuart and maybe after you are gone, but I predict a statue of you will appear in or near the royal square in the future.

I would support mass peaceful demonstrations in the royal square. Sit ins until they all go home forever.

I don't think "sit-ins" cut it. Too time consuming and sure to get a "meh" reaction(besides they forced through Tazers to deal with any such inconvenience)

I think the states should be given a month to put things in motion(cancelling their own summer break would start to recognise their own decades of failure)Then the "paint protests" can begin. Or maybe something more imaginative.

What makes 07:22 make think that "LH" is pretending to be Lenny Harper.It is a demonstration of the continued "climate of fear" that most commenters use "Anon" ......like yourself.

In house discord on a subject that there appears to be general agreement is counter productive.

If you believe my text to be lacking in suggestions please feel free to provide counter suggestions that could better suit the outcome we appear to agree on - CHANGE.

It is 5 decades too late to see what the government will or will not do and sit back and listen to the rhetoric that would certainly be considered in past record terms unlikely to be implemented in any functional manner. The system is broken the report makes that clear. If we are to fix anything we need to change everything. I can hardly suggest a violent island wide takeover it just would be irresponsible if anyone got hurt; so I suggest peaceful. Sit ins may not be the answer but complaining is not the answer either. Solidarity in the face of this disaster is more than enough moral reason for regime change.

Just a last note here I am not pretending to be anyone. These are my given initials.

Please let's listen to one another and remove this defunct system whilst they are clearly floundering

I am in agreement with Stuart on the next phase. However I think there is an urgent job to do today, ahead of the in committee debate. Simply most States members will struggle to read the whole report in time, let alone observe the deficiencies, errors, lacunae as Stuart puts it. It is a massively tall order, but what is needed is a briefing paper to the 'shocked' States members to cover these points. What isn't there is as important as what is, and they wont see it - of course. I dont have a solid proposal of how to achieve that, but perhaps someone here can.

“There are people working in the states of Jersey and some of them in childcare today who should be in prison,” the former senior officer who launched the police investigation claimed when we spoke to him today.

TheLondonEconomic, well worth a read. Please do the link VFC. Thank you.

Hate to say how true this is. I know for a fact it's true. When abusers and rapists who escaped justice due to the Jersey Way are still allowed to work in child protection, even to this very day, will make a mockery of the inquiry and its recommendations if Gorst doesn't put his money where his mouth is and get shot of unsuitable staff, I'm afraid nothing is going to change. How can it when rapists are still employed in child protection posts to this very day? I'll be watching closely...

The backtracking has started.This morning on BBC Jersey Radio,Ian Gorst was asked specifically ' and what about the Enquiry stating that Andrew Lewis had lied to the States and to it".His answer was " yes we were all surprised that they took that view".

It is as clear as day to most interested people. If the States do nothing about a confirmed lier in Andrew Lewis as stated in the report, which the Jersey States after many debates already new about, then outside intervention as ex Police Chief Graham Power writes is essential.

A clear out of Government and senior civil servants becomes closer. Gorst talks about a culture change, well start now and instigate action.

The lies of Andrew Lewis ....Quote from chapter 10 of the COI report:10.373 Andrew Lewis lied to the States Assembly about the Metropolitan Police report, pretending that he had had sight of it when he had not; Andrew Lewis told Dr Brian Napier QC that he had discussed the suspension of Graham Power in October 2008, while telling us that he knew nothing about it until 11 November 2008; Andrew Lewis denied that he had discussed with Wendy Kinnard and Christopher Harris the possibility that Graham Power would be suspended. We do not accept his evidence in this respect.

You are quite right Rico. Constable Norman attended on one day of Lewis giving evidence on oath. Whether or not he was there on the first or second day when Counsel McGahey made mincemeat of him, I can't remember.

I also made a complaint to Constable Norman, so shocked and dismayed was I about Lewis's behaviour. He told me he could do nothing until the Report was released. Well - it now have been and the resultant findings should leave P.P.C. in no doubt at all.

Mystic Meg's prediction for the day: Lewis will resign from the PPC as he feels that, although he has done nothing wrong and was entirely exonerated in the COI report, his continued presence is a distraction to its work. He hopes it will draw a line under the issue.

Indeed, but does lying in the States in order to justify suspending the chief of police amount to misconduct in a public office? While parliamentary privilege affords absolute protection for what you say, could the act of lying (rather than the actual words) be construed as unlawful? Especially when coupled with the fact that the lies in question were part of a criminal conspiracy to remove the chief of police.

The "emergency" removal of the Chief of Police was not just a punishment for allowing the investigation of child abuse. There were more urgent matters which precipitated the madness as at least two police enquiries were reaching a critical stage

1. The investigation into "Planning corruption on an industrial scale"

2. The serial rape investigation into a very senior oligarchy linchpin, who was accused by a multitude of teenage and adult women of brutal and violent rapes and had been above the law up to that point. Mr [737] still holds a very senior position and is again above the rule of law.

2. At the age of 18 I worked for the States of Jersey. In order to assist mymother who was having financial difficulties, I went for an interview for a jobat a ########################### The interview took placearound 6pm on a winter's evening when I went to the interview in ########### The man who interviewed me was [737] I didn't know it at thetime but [737] was a ##### I wasn't particularly interested ######at the time, but I do remember saying that ############# Theinterview proceeded normally and towards the end I asked whether he wouldconsider paying me a lower wage and paying cash in hand: I wanted to helpmy mother out of her financial difficulties and this seemed like a goodpractical solution. I had no idea that it was not an acceptable thing to say, itfelt like the right thing to do at the time.

3. After I mentioned cash in hand [737] told me that he thought 'wecould come to some sort of arrangement' and proceeded to violently rapeme. I mentioned something about reporting it, but [737 just laughed andsaid 'Who would believe your word against that of a ######### .After hearing that I didn't feel confident to report the incident.

4. I was in a terrible state when I left. My clothes were torn and I wasbloodstained. I walked to my next door neighbour's house as I wasn'tcomfortable to go straight home and face my parents. My neighbour's namewas ##### When I knocked on the door her husband answered.He exclaimed 'Oh my God' and went to get ######.##### gave me some of clothes to wear so that I could go home.

A famous quote from Ex Senator Stuart Syvret, just before he was removed from office in 2008: "The culture of self-supporting invulnerability demonstrated by senior officers is now going to come to an end whether they like it or not". A question for Stuart. You didn't have time to deal with these senior officers, but are they the ones that were suspended yesterday?

Ian Gorst is an essentially weak individual - and self-deluded. Actually thinks of himself as some kind "saint" - because of his religious beliefs - just like Ian Le Marquand - but, in truth, is weak, and a sock-puppet.

I've e-mailed Ian Gorst - on several occasions - including just recently - and never - not once - have I had the answer from a man - from someone with independent thought - courage - ethics - wisdom.

He is in the position he is in - for exactly the same reason his fellow spiritual fantasist and inadequate Ian Le Marquand was in his position; because he's a "plausible" front-guy - a credible sock-puppet. Of the very best kind - namely the type who believe their own propaganda; so imbued with self-delusion, they can carry-off the act - without acting.

Any credible Chief Minister would have - publicly - demanded the immediate resignation of Andrew Lewis.

Hell, Lewis is over. Destroyed. History. Finished. You lie to a parliament - that's it. Game Over. Look up Profumo.

Were I in Gorst's position, I'd be saying to Lewis and the legislature, "Either Lewis goes - right now - or I do. Your choice. Who's side do you want to be on? Criminals and liars? Or of ethical governance? Well, here is where you make your decision. Choose. Me, or Lewis?"

Gorst won't do that, of course, because he is, essentially, self-deluding. And weak.

But the fundamental point remains - and it is not a party-political, nor Left or Right issue, but rather something that should be a simple 'given' to all decent parliamentarians - that no parliament - no respectable parliamentarians - can ever do its job - no collection of elected representatives can ever do their job - if Ministers lie.

If your politicians cannot ask questions - in your name - in your parliament - and be confident of receiving honest answers - then you don't have real democracy.

Government can never be answerable to the people - if the executive arm lies to the legislative arm.

And all respectable, decent parliamentarians would agree with that. Regardless of whether they were right, left, or centre.

Being long-term unemployed I hope this confirmation by the COI that the so called progressives who fought for the victims were right all along I really hope this forthcoming election will see the incompetents and the cover up merchants who have dominated all positions of power for so long will be kicked in to touch. If we are to have a new Jersey way then we need a new start. A new broom to sweep away the gangsters.

The real key to a change of government is in the hands of the young voters in this Island and Reform Jersey should be going all out to get thier votes. There are people here that regardless of what has been shown about the old guard will still vote for them because it is in thier blood. So come on the youth of Jersey, you were given the vote, use it but remember you MUST be on the register to vote and that is a simple matter to achieve, your future is in your hands.

"It increasingly seems like nothing will change.Already Baillache defending his liberation day speech,Lewis denying he lied and more non reporting from the media.Very little coverage on JEP online and very little on Bailiwick Express with no comments!!!Unfortunately the international media interest wasn't sufficient to stop the Jersey Way- and so on it goes."

Anybody who believes this knows absolutely nothing about Jersey politics, or Andrew Lewis. How will he be gone? He clearly has no sense of shame, and as part of the island's grifter class isn't going to walk away from an easy £45k. So he isn't going to resign.

He can't be sacked, since only the electorate can do that through an election. The bailiff can go all syvret on his ass and make up a fictional power of exclusion from the house, which would mean 10 months of paid gardening leave. But that won't happen, will it? I mean, it's not likely that Bailhache junior is going to do anything as rash as take overt action against a fellow conspirator, is it? Some awkward beans might get spilled.

"The Bailiff can go all syvret on his ass." I chuckled at this and when I first read the word 'syvreted' too, which I think I read first in this blog. Meaning -political oppression by TPTB on a whistelblower trying to do the right thing. I think it deserves a place in the Urban Dictionary along with The Jersey Way.

Bailiwick Express want a 'brilliant journalist' They are going to have a tough time recruitng locally with that requirement. http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/jobs/classifieds/news-journalist/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Recruitment%20Email%20-%20Thursday%2005%20July&utm_content=Recruitment%20Email%20-%20Thursday%2005%20July+CID_24df56c623320855669e1ed5703c0482&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Read%20more

The more I read the more this looks like a £24m whitewashA decade's wait and we get a damage limitation exercise which gives us the obvious rent boy Lewis but finds *nobody* else to blame:

10.42 We cannot be sure why Frank Walker, Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis acted as they did, or why Andrew Lewis lied both to the States and to us. Frank Walker described Andrew Lewis as an inexperienced politician, and even appointed a more senior politician to mentor him [REALLY] in his Home Affairs role. While Frank Walker told us that, nevertheless, he did not think that Andrew Lewis would have been influenced by his view as Chief Minister, we believe not only that such influence was inevitable but also that it would have been recognised by all involved, including Frank Walker and Bill Ogley. Whatever the motivation, however, nothing that we have seen suggests that the suspension of Graham Power was motivated by any wish to interfere with Operation Rectangle or to cover up abuse. END

on any REALLY IMPORTANT aspect I challenge readers to find an incidence where the CoI Panel does not give their paymasters the absolute benefit of the doubt.

Where an issue is truly problematic or might lead to people actually being held to account the Panel concludes that it is just one of life's *mysteries*

And they take the opportunity to insert a bit of platitudinous spin:

"Whatever the motivation, however, nothing that we have seen suggests that the suspension of Graham Power was [NOT] motivated by any wish to interfere with Operation Rectangle or to cover up abuse."

Surely the onus was on the CoI to *inquire* to find a plausible alternative explanation ........... and on failing, to then state the likelihood of the bleeding obvious! ....... rather than it's opposite

I have tried to help them out by inserting [NOT] which might help them recognise how decades of state sponsored abuse actually occurred, rather than that too remaining a £24,000,000 mystery.

Take the wrapping off and we realise that they are actually taking the piss!

Ture Polo. But not if you are standing in the same district as the best DEputy St Helier 2 ever had, Shona Pitman, but happen to be an Establishment lackey with a beard and a three letter name beiginning with the letter R.

Politically motivated, selective prosecutions don't just happen with abuse cases we must remember. Two JDA deputies in the district proecuted but not the two non party affiliated ones as Barking Bill was exposed to have done.

Let off one because in his words it seemed a one off offence. Yet Pitman he did prosecute for helping to disabled people register. No wonder our kids' safety couldn't be guaranteed with AGs like Bailhache.

That is so true Polo and I had forgotten about that little gem, never mind I know I can't get arrested for molesting and raping women, oh I forgot that one as well I must be someone of importance to get away with that one.

Why hasn't anybody mentioned the Freemasons in connection with the Jersey Way.A secret organisation that has political, legal and business connections that has a duty to help it's members without question?This organisation is a cancer.

So... how can the establishment afford to take the risk? Suppose Lewis turns around and says "ah yes, I did lie. But I was asked to do this by Ogley and Walker. They were covering for 737." Surely then the house of cards falls if Lewis adopts this strategy as it will expose the political cover up, an area that I don't think we will find mention of in the report. The only way to resolve this from happening I presume is a pay off and / or a lesser sentence to stop Lewis singing like a canary. My guess is Lewis will remain tight lipped. Reminds me of Jeff le Marchand, or like when paeodophiles commit suicide to protect others. We shoudn't forget the much higher suicide rate in 2008 which the authorities were quick to class as a blip.

Well your comment comes immediately after a comment about the masonic influence in Jersey. If AG does nothing to Lewis, or indeed says he can't do anything then that could very well of the deciding factor.

My own view is that there will be mild public criticism for not being clear and unequivocal in past and current comments, followed by passing of the buck to PPC, followed by lots of hand wringing, followed by exasperated claims that we can do nothing under the rules, and he will get away with nothing but a bit of humiliation. The only way he will go is if we the public storm the house!

I don't agree. Lewis cannot survive but it will take a while. And that in my view is a GOOD THING. Because it keeps this whole area in the public spotlight. The biggest danger to success in the long term with getting adequate child protection and child care services is simply that people lose interest and it falls off the radar.

The real goal is to get him into a court if at all possible. The more he maintains his impossible position along the way, to PPC or to the Chairmen's Committee for example, the better.

But also if he was to be fired from PAC in some sudden way, (NB Gorst absolutely does not have the power to eject a chairman from Scrutiny, that would be verging on dictatorship. The States voted him into that position, the States must remove him, ideally on a proposition from PPC), or even if he was to be excluded from the States, again in an instant way, then the value of different States members having to face the moral, intellectual and political issues FOR THEMSELVES, is lost.

The joy of "getting rid of him" is one thing, winning the war is another.

In the end if PPC duck the issue, then the Chairmen's Committee can be invited by backbenchers to bring the proposition. (Chairmen's Committee is the chairmen and women of all the Scrutiny Committees (PPC is not a Scrutiny Committee) meeting as a body) If they duck too, then we shall know that the Jersey Way is pretty deeply entrenched. If they or PPC say - yes of course we will do this, then we will know that TJW is a bit weaker than it was.

All this is vital information, vital part of the whole campaign, In My Opinion.

So a new commissioner for children has been approved. What difference will that make to the Jersey Way? No one has dealt with the reality of its who, you know that works whether a law maker or breaker.

1. Since the report I am aware that a few front line staff have been removed- is there a website where I can go and find out who they are?

2. How does a super-injunction fit in with the Report? I mean, suppose someone has a super injunction imposed on them in relation to any aspect of the inquiry. Will that be void now or does that individual have to still keep quiet on certain issues?

I can't help with No.1 and I imagine that such information is confidential but sure to leak out soonThe facts were out months or even decades ago so how come it was necessary to wait for a "report" before taking essential action?

No. 2:"How does a super-injunction fit in with the Report? I mean, suppose someone has a super injunction imposed on them in relation to any aspect of the inquiry. Will that be void now or does that individual have to still keep quiet on certain issues?"There was some apparently expert discussion of this on the blog in the last month or so. If I recall the advice was that in theory the CoI protections *should* trump the superinjunctions but It was impossible to be sure without it being tested in court. There was the additional caveat that Jersey Courts are prone to make bizarre judgements when they see fit, like in Syvret's politicised Data Protection imprisonments.

These are the very issues and uncertainties which would have made it madness for the ex health minister to give evidence without legal representation.

BREAKING: Ex-minister will not face prosecution for 'lying' to care inquiryRead more at http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/07/06/breaking-ex-minister-will-not-face-prosecution-for-lying-to-care-inquiry/#28hKAcSJ3HyeMZuB.99

Lewis evidence to COI protected by parliamentary privilege ... he knew that before giving evidence and just carried on lying in the full knowledge that he was immune from any prosecution! He continues to maintain his innocence and claims that the Christopher Harris note of their meeting was fabricated!!

Shocking, and yes after all that has been said today The Jersey Way still rules. I would like McRae to point us in the direction of the law that applies to this. Seemingly politicians can be liars in and out of the States.

Really? Why is it then that if someone chairing a Scrutiny panel asked him 'Did you advise the Minister for whatever x, y and z the open to everyone equally AG will not tell them what advise he gave. It has happened in the past and will happen again.

The AG is apparently impartial guaranteed because he is not, for example, a member of the Tory or Labour parties like in the UK.

This is demonstrable bollox. The AG, like the Bailiff, Jurats are invisible card carrying members of the Establishment party just as they have always been.

MaeCrae or whatever his name is stated that AGs have always been impartial. Anyone knowing anything of Jersey will know that throughout history AGs have not only been Establishment poodles but even in the days of open party politics here (perhaps our AG doesn't know much about his adopted island?) AGs were often of the same family as the Bailiff and/or a few jurats.

The AG tell the Asssembly nobody is above the law. Again demonstrable bollox.

What about the multi-millionaire businessman now deceased who was named in the Donnelly case by both the victim and Donnelly himself as abusing her in the back of a vehicle? This was even said in open court. Yet AG William Bailhache did not proosecute.

Look at the early copies of the COI witness statement from Dep T Pitman if you don't believe me. Prior to the many paragraphs being permanently disappeared this was made quite clear.

Also consider further evidence given to the COI. For example the Victoria Cllege Jervis-Dykes cover up. The investigating police officer told the inquiry that the police were prevented from properly questioning let alone bringing charges against a Vice Principle who had since been given a job as a jurat after a a pupil complained about being bullied in to silence after he reported Jervis-Dykes abuse to the Vice Principle.

The officer also described this indivodual as a pathetic man lacking any integrity and stated that the police could not believe he was ever allowed to become a jurat.

The Bailiff and AG at the time were Philip Bailhache and Michael Birt. Even after the jurat's retirement, right after sitting on the Pitman's defamation case I seem to recall, he was brought back by William Bailhache to sit on another child abuse case!

Today the true white elephant in the chamber that actually allowed all of these decades of abuse to happen was and will always remain until we have a true democracy the Crown Officer.

McRae's apologist waffle today not only misled States Members it was a disgrace.

States of Jersey Law 200534 Immunity from legal proceedingsNo civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of the States –(a) for any words spoken before or written in a report to the States or a committee or panel established under standing orders; or(b) by reason of any other matter or thing brought by the member before or within the States or any such committee or panel by petition, proposition or otherwise.

I need to look again at the words he used but I do believe that he tried to con the assembly again today when he was talking about the in-camera debate and he said that he had a report entitled ' the met interim report in front of him' ... and he held it up... giving the impression that that is what caused his confusion during that debate ... then when asked about it he didn't give a straight answer as to whether he had that report in front of him in that debate ... need to look at the recording again ... but he needs to asked again whether or not he had a copy of the met interim report at the time or not... because we now know that he hadn't seen it.

I think the inquiry simply sought to detract from the general banality of their report - it is on the most part full of platitudes. The two distractions are knocking down HDLG and the Lewis "lie". The Island needs to move on from October (or was it November, who actually knows) of 2008.

I believe Wendy Kinnard (a well respected, honest hard working former politician, with real integrity) and Christopher Harris (her partner) long before I believe that weasel Lewis! So did the COI, that is not in dispute. 2 against 1, when the 1 is proven to lie. QED

I have been watching the States debate today.They have been talking about what happens when civl servants blow the whistle.Talking about the Pitmans and Syvret,we know they asked a lot of questions about perpetrators not being prosecuted by the judiciary and that it actually protected paedos,when they were in the States.They clearly had no protection from talking publicly about their evidence. The Pitmans losing their case by (illegally, as the Jurat had previously been one of those teachers protecting a later convicted paedo) and then being unnecessarily made bankrupt.Then we had Walker and Ogley et al,in my opinion,colluding to get rid of Syvret.No States member has mentioned this-protection for them and their colleagues.Why?

What I would like to know is why didn't most of those politicians droning on boringly about the inquiry simply apologise for never having done anything before, all the work to help the victims secure justice being left to a handful of present and former progressive politicians? At worst quite a number of these people droning on all concerned on the surface actually mocked those fighting for justice and the stories of the victims. Pathetic.

Wow. Just wow.....he disputes - even now - after all this - "that there was a cover-up".

My God.

Let me say to Ian Gorst - through your honest and reliable media - "Let me suggest to you, Chief Minister, that the States of Jersey Public Inquiry would have - would have - received - even more - dramatic evidence of the undoubted cover-up - had you required of it, that it comply with the Jersey legislature decision which established the CoI, and it comply with "Part e" of that decision. Had the CoI done so, it would not have adopted ultra vires "protocols" and instead would have complied with the ECHR, and then would have had more witnesses."

If Ian Gorst disputes the plain - stark - fact - there was a decades-long child-abuse cover-up - perhaps he would care to explain why the "public-inquiry" which has taken place under his leadership - chose to intimidate, harass, and constructively exclude a vital key witness, me?

If he's relying upon the report of this CoI - as somehow "endorsing" his fantasy denial of the stark decades of overt, disgusting child-abuse cover-up which took place - then he should be required to explain why he chose as the central evidence-co-ordination officer to the CoI, a man who actually screamed - I mean SCREAMED - abuse at me across the boardroom table when I as Health & Social Services Minister required him and the Chief Executive to enact my lawful Ministerial decision to remove the failed Chair of the Jersey Child Protection Committee, so I could replace her with Professor June Thoburn, an independent external, world-renowned expert?

You'll no doubt be pleased to read this on page 7, chapter 12 of the full report:

"12.18 The Panel considered carefully, and has given prominence to, the evidence of Jo Olson on the current state of child care services in Jersey, for four reasons. First, she is an experienced practitioner and manager of social work services, with a track record of transforming underperforming services. Secondly, she provided an outsider’s view, having come to the island to undertake a particular role and with no agenda of seeking advancement, residency or later employment in Jersey. Thirdly, her observations are supported by the evidence and contributions of service users, other professionals and organisations in Jersey. Fourthly, and most significantly, her evidence contrasts markedly with the evidence of Anton Skinner, Richard Jouault and others on the performance of Children’s Services in the period from the 1990s to the commencement of Inquiry hearings. While these witnesses described some challenges and issues within services for children, there was no suggestion in their evidence of the depth of dysfunctionality, poor quality of management and absence of basic social work skills that subsequently became apparent to the Panel through the evidence of the SCRs and of some of the interim and current managers in post from 2014 onwards.

12.19 Had the evidence of Anton Skinner and Richard Jouault not been balanced by the evidence of Jo Olsson and others, and by many Phase 3 contributors, including care-experienced young people, the Inquiry would have been left with a very different understanding of the current condition of child care services in Jersey."

You have to appreciate the polite but devastating language of the inquiry.

The panel believed the evidence of Jo Olson over Richard Jouault. End of story.

To be precise, it was Richard Jouault and Tony Le Sueur, not Anton Skinner, who were given this bizarre role of co-ordinating evidence gathering on behalf of the States.

Regardless, that's a devastating conclusion for Jouault. There have been reports on the blogs throughout the inquiry of how inappropriate it has looked to have him work closely with the inquiry staff. I was expecting a whitewash infavour of Jouault. As it happens, the inquiry nailed him too, with a devastatingly polite sentence about whose evidence they preferred.

You have to remember that Jouault was 'seconded' to the Chief Minister's department for the duration of the inquiry. What does Ian Gorst do now?

To those eager to embrace the report of this CoI - just reflect - reflect - on a few of key facts we all know:

There are dozens - and dozens - of toxic criminals active in Jersey. Not only people like Andrew Lewis - who lie to the States, and who commit perjury before "public-inquiries".

There are gangster - corrupt property speculators, who were able to get away with child-abuse, because of their contacts.

There are corrupt civil-servants.

There are civil-servants who engaged in conspiracies to pervert the course of justice.

There are civil-servants who commit misconduct in public office.

There are politicians and civil-servants who - on the stark evidence - illegally acted against the proper application of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Etc - etc - etc.

But who - by way of contrast - is the only person involved in the polity - involved in all of those administrative matters - to have been rabidly pursued by the "law" apparatus - and to have been repeatedly jailed - and who lives under the perpetual threat - a threat instrumental in preventing him from giving evidence to the CoI - of more, lengthening prison sentences? And who faces routine death-threat?

A key whistle-blower against child-abuse. Me.

It is axiomatic, as I've said many times before - that only defective, stupid, weak, unprincipled - fundamentally inadequate - individuals get chosen to be Attorney General. It's axiomatic, that any individual who would be a good Attorney General - would never get chosen for the post, as happens now, by his predecessors - because a good person would have to prosecute his predecessors.

The community of Jersey are not protected by the rule-of-law.

We weren't before the CoI.

And we're not after the CoI.

The war goes on.

Now that the CoI report has come, and gone - we must resume the task of fighting for the effective rule-of-law in Jersey.

Robert McCrae QC. Educated at Victoria College (quelle surprise!), then went to uni in England & practiced at the English bar for 11 years (which explains the English accent) before going back to the rock in 2001.

If I understood the AG correctly, he said that non-States members could be prosecuted for perjury before a Committee of Inquiry such as the Jersey Inquiry.

I know that he was talking about perjury and that the ordinary statements made before the Inquiry, once they fell short of perjury, would be privileged and so not subject to action outside the Inquiry.

However, given the prejudicial way in which Stuart Syvret had been dealt with in the past, would it not be unreasonable for him to have considered that things he might say to the Inquiry might be construed as perjury by a hostile prosecution service? And should he not have been entitled to independent legal assistance in the circumstances?

On a different point, have we ever seen reliable legal advice to the effect that the Inquiry had the power to subpoena witnesses?

The AG’s presumptuous statement to the effect that Lewis cannot be prosecuted for lying to the Inquiry is clearly designed (and timed) to dissuade Graham Power from following up his recent comment that if no-one in Jersey sues Lewis for perjury, he would be prepared to do it himself. In any event, the AG’s declared view on the matter is of zero practical interest as long as no-one has actually started legal proceedings and presented their case against Lewis – a case which might be based on an interpretation of the Law that differs from that favoured by the AG.

Assuming that the AG’s pronouncement is based on Section 35 of the Law of 2005 (as posted by Anon, 6th June at 19:25), then it’s pretty clear that para (a) applies to Lewis’ lies to the States Assembly and other parts of the States apparatus, but has no bearing outside the States institutions.

The same cannot be said, however, of para (b) in respect of evidence given under oath to the independent Inquiry – so much so that I venture to suggest that the AG’s interpretation of that law should be tested in court. At the end of the day, how the law is to be interpreted in a given set of circumstances does not depend on the AG – it depends on the judge.

Looking at it from a different angle, if para (b) does apply to a States member’s verbal or written statements to the Inquiry, what was the point of having those members swear an oath before the Inquiry?

The AG has also displayed arrogant presumptuousness in his recent statement, here: http://www.itv.com/news/channel/2017-07-05/jerseys-attorney-general-welcomes-care-inquiry-report/ to the effect that he is "committed to improving the criminal justice system".

It is not the role of the AG to “improve the criminal justice system” – his role is to ensure that the “system” (whatever its qualities and failings might be) is applied correctly, without fear or favour, to all the Island’s residents and visitors. In particular, he is expected to ensure that criminals are prosecuted and properly punished – and that the innocent are neither prosecuted nor punished (as has been seen to happen in Jersey all too often).

Today's debate was shocking. Possibly the worst in living memory. Fall of phoney hand-wringing from people who probably never read a single witness statement to the COI, and certainly have never taken the trouble to meet a victim. Take Higgins, Tadier and Mezec out of the equation and what you had left was awful. No focus on the real issues of the Jersey way and those who personify and keep it going. Bailiffs and Attorney Generals. Next to no focus on the wriggling worm that is Lewis. A waste of time.

Agree totally with comment at 22:09 I half wondered if they were on the same planet. There was someone harping on about the old days and minimized the issue by saying that was the way things were done back then. No true feeling or understanding from some members it was just a chance to show faux concern. Talking about authors of books blah blah blah what was that about. The Jersey Way in action with Andrew Lewis There can be no question of a prosecution of a states member for anything said to an enquiry. What about the wrong done to Graham Power as a consequence of those lies? if you are a states member the Jersey Way Law protects States members.

Here is some help with finding what you are looking for in the Inquiry Report

The States Assembly website has the entire Inquiry Report in one document, so you can search, just once, and find and go through all references to “cigarette burns” – there are none. Or references to Stuart Syvret – there are 26.

For copies of each chapter, go to the Inquiry’s own website. These are quickly downloadable, which is handy. The downside is that to search for one thing you are looking for, you have to search each chapter separately, which is very time-consuming.. So use the States Assembly version.

Quite so, but the text search on the published documents is a bit glitch and results may depend on which program or browser you are using.

First of all as it is a long document it takes a while for the search to complete (maybe a minute or more) and the number found will count up in fits and starts.

Also the devil is in the detail and it is VERY IMPORTANT to be careful with what precisely goes in the search box if doing this research.

I find a total of *50* incidences of [Syvret]N.B. use the minimum words necessary ....Don't include "Stuart " as it will miss Mr Syvret, Senator Syvret etc.....Delete the space after [Syvret ] or it will miss Syvret. and Syvret's etc. etc.

Perhaps we should be thanking the AG for now reducing the TEN commandments down to NINE as we can now ignore "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour". This of course MUST now be part of all Jersey schools curiculam so our children are taken down the right pathway into life. I am truly ashamed to be a Jerseyman after hearing this disgracful crap.

Good point ... you'd think that the dean would have something to say about this 'immunity from telling lies under oath' law ... which goes against the fundamental belief system that underpins the states of jersey edifice and which the dean is meant to uphold ... I mean, they start every states sitting chanting some prayer and the oath is taken on the bible ...so a bit of a contradiction here ... so will the dean , who is supposed to be our moral compass, shine a light on this dark practice which condones sinning by our elected leaders. What is the point of him being there if he says nothing in such circumstances? Or does he also condone the breaking of this commandment?

I think the GP JEP article (not sure if its online) was GP calling for Andrew Lewis to be investigated for perjury. Hope to get my interview with Graham Power published over the weekend. I have also interviewed Lenny Harper which I hope to publish straight after.

Will the Dean who is speaking in the States of Jersey let us know, Who within the States of Jersey is accountable for Andrew Lewis's lies? or is the protection of Andrew Lewis paramount. The failings shown in the report are within the States of Jersey not society. Our values of the Jersey Way are shown clearly in the support given to Andrew Lewis.

The jersey way winded but not out by a country mile nothing will ever change untill the people of jersey rise up and fight it has to start at the very top and work it's way down any one who thinks this coi will change anything is very much mistaken they will change the front of house but the top floor,s will stay the same .

Many others here, have been critical of the judiciary (& the AG) andthe Inquiry’s findings in regard to the deficiencies and duplicity oftheir roles.

I do not disagree with these criticisms however; I would bringattention to the effectiveness of, if considered so, what may be,conscientious individuals being constrained by the law and process as it stands or more importantly, as it stood.

Just recently, John Chilcott has given an interview with regards tothe legitimacy of the Iraq war. The key issue here was when he wasasked: if the war was a legal one and he said (these are my words nothis) that in the end, it was documented to be fully compliant with the law however, the process of getting to that decision was not, in his opinion, correct.

Does this ring any bells?

What I am trying to convey is that when within legal confines thatprocess can appear to be fully compliant and stand up to scrutiny asit has in the IJCI Report. However, this does not necessarily takeinto account how decisions were reached.

There are some important factors here, such as meeting the requisitelegal tests for bringing a case forward to prosecution, namely:

• The Corroboration Rule (and subsequently abolished in law in 2012)

• Public Interest Test

Corroboration requirements were required to validate prosecutions upuntil the year 2012. This meant that without corroboration, therecould be no prosecution. In the case of historical abuse, victimswere not considered credible witnesses. (The abolishment of thecorroboration rule in 2012 and the Inquiry’s conclusion that this wasa matter of tardiness on the part of the government rather than a wayto prevent prosecutions of cases of abuse is something I do not agreewith).

Public interest tests can be, as we have seen, interpreted indifferent ways by different people at different times. So not simpleto criticise this with integrity as this is in some cases, SUBJECTIVE.

It was interesting that during Operation Rectangle that the publicinterest test requirements FOR ALL CASES brought forward wouldimmediately pass the public interest test. If you apply all thehistorical abuse cases on their own merits and apply this standard tothose cases in that they would pass the public interest andcorroboration tests….. we can see that there would likely have beenmany more prosecutions in the courts.

More importantly – it can clearly be seen that with these obstacles toJUSTICE it is likely why so many cases were not brought forward toprosecution.

The point here is not just a boring technical one but rather arational possible reasoning to why so much of the abuse went oncontinuously with IMPUNITY.How could/can this be rectified? CHANGE

Change in government.

Not in the first instance a call for thejudiciary and the AG to immediately change their roles such as beingadvisor to all and everything; this is simply not, and cannot be anindependent judiciary as described by the AG, as there is clearly aconflict of interest. A monopoly on this is an abomination and arejection of logical analysis and does not stand up to scrutiny. They(the judiciary) will never see this introspectively and so calls forchange in this area are redundant.Power of a full democratically elected parliament is the only areathat is even slightly open to reform at this time.

So let’s do this –CHANGE the government! Its open to it and it will not evolve on itsown – confirmation of this is evident from the ego driven duality ofthe speeches made in the parliamentary debate today.

Personally I cannot believe that so much is being given to thepossibility of this reform not being fully endorsed/enshrined inlegislation. These people are the politicians. Who really cares whatthey think personally – just create POLICY. This is their job andsentimental posturing is obscene in the face of a DISASTER of thismagnitude.

How can we ever trust a member of the states again, I always thought they promised to tell the truth at all times, however we now find they can tell lies without fear of loosing their well paid job, I will never trust a member of the states again as long as Lewis is part of that membership, It matters not how much of the taxpayers money they waste or how many lies they tell they are not accountable, a law unto themselves, I would like to see a transcript of morning prayers and see what promises they make in these. (Lewis time to go.)

Excellent speach by Rousell Laby in the States of Jersey taking place at the moment. Well done Jackie Hilton on raising the Andrew Lewis issue its almost as though States Members are scared to get to the nitty gritty and skirting around the report.